but nevertheless when you start talking about going after medicaid, medicaid, with an ax instead of a scalpel, you're asking for trouble. so you're right, that hardly want to characterize it. >> the president's speech, but do you agree the president's speech wasn't fundamentally about advancing positive specific solutions. it was getting on slightly better -- better political ground in order to attack. a classic jack lou type -- [everyone talking at once] >> i want to ask a question. do you think the debate is beginning or ending? >> that's the beginning. >> beginning! >> obama gave a very -- >> is time more or the side of the president or is time on the side of ryan? >> don't expect anything to happen before election. >> you don't think that -- more ryan the american public will prefer that? >> no, they're not. >> to the existing state affairs are where -- >> down the road for their couple years. >> the american people are now at a point where they're scared. and you know what is scaring them? the size of the national debt is what is scaring them. >> here's what people are scared of.

i want to turn briefly to medicaid, but simply put, turning medicaid into a block grant program is just code for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in nursing homes, seniors in an assisted living facilities, low-income kids, disabled individuals, and a most deplorable population. it is the blank check the governors with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. finally, i will end by saying this notion, the orwellian notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block- granting medicare that will help hurt individuals in nursing homes and other settings, to suggest that that is done to save medicare is a little reminiscent of that twisted saying that you have to this juror the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on the system for their supports, and all of us know it was not that long ago that republican members of congress surely

medicare and medicaid at all?some measures were included in the health reform law. paul ryan did include some of that in the proposal he released. giving vouchers for medicare is essentially transferring thousands of dollars from the most normal people -- that is not who we are in this country. there is enough if we take a different course and increase taxes on those that can afford to pay. host: the latest poll numbers are seven points below where they were in the most recent other poll, nearly matching the worst level of his presidency, have fisher message appeal to independents, which president obama needs to win the election? guest: they are hungry for something that speaks to the crisis they see in the country. we had the worst financial crisis in the country in 70 years. nobody went to jail. we had a regulatory reform package that was not tough enough. foreclosures and unemployment continue to increase. what is the other path? a robust alternative, investing in jobs in this country, that would be the winning

i want to turn briefly to medicaid, but simply put, turning medicaid into a block grant program is just code for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in nursing homes, seniors in an assisted living facilities, low-income kids, disabled individuals, and a most deplorable population. it is the blank check the governors with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. finally, i will end by saying this notion, the orwellian notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block- granting medicare that will help hurt individuals in nursing homes and other settings, to suggest that that is done to save medicare is a little reminiscent of that twisted saying that you have to this juror the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on the system for their supports, and all of us know it was not that long ago that republican members of congress surely

this budget secures medicaid by converting the federal share of medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state's needs. i understand the importance for states to have this kind of flexibility, and this reform ends the liberal and misguided one-size-fits-all approach that's tied the hands of so many of our state governments. it gives states the flexibility to tailor a medicaid program to fit their needs. this would naturally improve the health care safety net for low income individuals and improve the access to care. medicaid recipients, like all americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions instead of being put under the control of nameless, faceless washington bureaucrats. this budget also makes significant strides in streamlining other government agencies. as a secretary of state of indiana, i know something about government dgeting. i operated my office in 2010 on a 1987 budget unadjusted for inflation. however, since 2008 spending on nonsecurity federal government agencies have increased by 24%, a number that jumps to 84

i think there's agreement from both parties that we have to look at medicare and medicaid, these health entitlements. but instead of privatizing it, which is what paul ryan has proposed-- when you privatize, you're saying basically... you give the insurance companies a lump sum of money and they go do what they want. what history has shown that rates continues to go up and costs go up, but benefits go down. we're looking at keeping the benefits but making the delivery systems more efficient. that would be done in the health care bill and will continue. it's a much different proposal. it's not leaving it up to the insurance companies. what i'm saying, jeff, is this, we will both agree that we have a deficit problem and have to bring it down. our belief is... >> that's what a change. >> shared sacrifice across the board. yours is just saying that middle class people. >> i deny that, that it's aimed only at middle class people. but what is changing here is the president's budget did none of that. the president's 2,000 pages he sent to us just a few weeks ago proposed no changes in medicare

same thing for medicaid. my friends on the other side of the aisle forget that we aren't the laboratories for innovations, but the states are. we will give them more opportunity for change and innovation and will end up with a better program that protects more people. i urge my colleagues to support this budget. we know we are on an unsustainable path. sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle and the president of the united states have not. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the medicaid program is where the costs of health care have grown much more slowly compared to the growth in health care costs elsewhere, cutting $1.4 trillion out of an already stretched program is not a recipe for helping more people. it will definitely hurt those who depend on medicaid. you are giving governors a blank check with no accountability. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the chair: th

it saves our medicare and medicaid programs. it fulfills the mission of healthy retirement security for all americans by guaranteeing that people who have retired or about to retire keep what they have, and then reforms these programs so that they are solvent and sustainable for the next generation. number three, it repairs our social safety net so that it works and number four, pays off our debt. that's what we do. i yield back the balance of my time. not the balance of our time, excuse me. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. ryan: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the fiscal commission said of the republican plan it was an unbalanced approach. our approach is a balanced approach. secretary gates' comments were directed to the fiscal commission's recommendations. our proposals are in line with what the president outlined just the other day and i would point out that governor haley barbour said if we republicans don't propose some savings of money o

reforming medicaid, a single rate for all states. projected savings, president obama claims that over 12 years his program will nearly $500 billion. >> let's look at these real clear metrics. taxes obama plan, raises tax $1trillion. by 2023 ryan's plan cuts taxes but 2.3 trillion.

this is medicaid. in medicaid the republican budget intends to cut medicaid by 3/4 of $1 trillion in the next decade. who gets medicaid? senior citizens, the disabled. this is immediate. can i have another 30 seconds? >> i yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for another minute. mr. garamendi: who gets medicaid? the aged, the blind, and the disabled gets medicaid. the republican budget cuts medicaid three quarters of a trillion dollars. seniors will be, not 10 years from now, but immediately as the budget reductions take place, will be thrown out of nursing homes. i just finished a conversation not more than two hours ago with the owner of nursing homes in california, he says, don't let them do it. we're just hanging on. any further reductions, any reductions in the republican bill, will force us to send out of our nursing homes thised me -- the people covered by medicaid. who are these children in the children in poverty. the children in poverty get medical servic

capps: i rise in strong opposition to gut medicaid. it is not only finding ways to improve medicaid, it's about limiting benefits to the most tees aching away access to well child visits. the medicaid program isn't just numbers on a balance sheet. it's the only access to care for millions of low-income seniors, poor children, people with disabilities. and under the republican proposal there will be less access and less care. especially in times of economic stress. like what we are going through today. medicaid rolls swell as people lose jobs and families lose income. under the republican block grant scheme, tough times will mean even tougher times for the newly unemployed, the frail, the young. as a nurse i believe a key moral measure of our society is how we treat the least among us. this irresponsible republican proposal just doesn't msh sure up. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for

. >> i get medicaid. but with medicaid they don't do fill ins or nothing like that. it's like take the whole tooth. i'm too young to be snag tooth. >> reporter: this is the 640th clinic sponsored by ram. the man that founded the event did so to help people in row

the people that are on medicaid -- they take medicaid and they use their money to buy big cadillacs, diamonds, designer clothes. it is ridiculous. the american people who are around these people getting all of these entitlements are sick and tired of seeing how it is wasted. we're sick and tired of the fraud. host: we got the point. dust and is 28 years old, calling from columbus, indiana -- dustin is 28 years old, calling from columbus, indiana. caller: if you have to cut it to keep it, then we should cut it. because, if we do not, me and my little girls are going to be paying, like we are now, going to be paying for everyone else to have a program. if you're going to keep taking my money, i would appreciate it if you fix the program. i like congressman ryan's idea of giving the power to the states. i believe 50 people working on the problem is a lot better than one big group. here in indiana, we did not vote for nancy pelosi. i know the people in san francisco would. we would vote for a man like mike pence. host: all right. kim is 44 years old and she is calling from california. ca

in other words, medicaid patients. we're going to sub substantially increase the role of medicaid, and it's all the case that it's difficult. if you're a medicaid recipient to be seen by a a primary care physician or anybody other than a public hospital where you can spend a lot of time in the emergency room, so, you know, to talk about essential benefit packages without asking yourself is there going to be delivery is a major issue especially for medicaid because those are, in fact, the people we're not paying attention to. we are focusing a lot politically on the uninsured, and there's 20 million people who will be uninsured in 6-7 years for a lot of reasons, some them, some us. but medicaid, we solved that problem, that's what the congressmen believe. it's gone now. especially in washington, the states will take care of it. i don't think they will because they've done a poor job so far. >> a question about gdp. what percentage of our gdp do we spend on health care? >> 17. >> about 17, okay. is 17 too high? is this t

>> here's the problem with medicaid. it is a one-size-fits-all federally run program that is administered by the states. we have dozens of letters from governors saying give me the freedom to customize medicaid to meet my state's particular needs and problems. we're telling the states how they run this program and the program is not being run very well. it too is going bankrupt putting pressure on state budgets. it's growing as an unsustainable rate. we're growing medicaid at a slower pace. they both grow every single year under this budge it. the key is this, we're giving the states the ability to free up reforms so they can customize their medicaid to fit their population. >> woodruff: is the ultimate goal fewer people on medicaid? >> hopefully we have more jobs and more prosperity so people aren't on medicaid. of course, we want less people on medicaid because that means people are making more money and having better lives and having more income. this budget also has been scored by outside economists as increasing dis

i want to turn briefly to medicaid, but simply put, turning medicaid into a block grant program is just code for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in nursing homes, seniors in an assisted living facilities, low-income kids, disabled individuals, and a most deplorable population. it is the blank check the governors with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. finally, i will end by saying this notion, the orwellian notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block- granting medicare that will help hurt individuals in nursing homes and other settings, to suggest that that is done to save medicare is a little reminiscent of that twisted saying that you have to this juror the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on the system for their supports, and all of us know it was not that long ago that republican members of congress surely

it is not cover the cost and medicaid. heaven forbid we go through the awful thing we went with unemployment. >> it is extremely important to me. this in the same way that democrats and republican congressman say the welfare program. it is some greater flexibility. it is different. >> every economist talks about the damage. it saved a lot of lives. this is not a committee that deals with saving lives. i want to tell about the taxes. >you plan to do if with seniors. you are pretty lavish with corporations. the asaph we could afford to do it. -- we asked if we could afford to do it. >> i disagree. we do address this issue. we believe it ought to be decreased to 25%. the fact that corporations has to pay no taxes. >> they have to pay their fair share. >> we are working for mr. van holloman. we have a few surprise winners. he had recently done the number. nothing could generate significant job growth. what we salt was this. what happened is that the job growth in the bush administration is 8 million new jobs. >> 8 million new

medicaid is already underfunded. block granting it in the name of reform is like throwing a drowning person an anchor. and the claim that dismanneding the medicare guarantee is necessary to save them is in my view simply or wellian. it reminds me of the statement that was made at one point that you have to destroy village in order to save it. democrats welcome an open debate about how we can build on the reforms in the affordable care act to strengthen and sustain medicare and medicaid but we will vigorously oppose any effort to undermine the integrity of these essential reports for seniors and vulnerable individuals. mr. chairman, we believe that the republican bunl is the wrong choice for america because it does not reflect what we believe are our values and priorities. it does not reflect the best of the american experience. it recognizes the importance of individual self-reliance, that is an very important part of the american character but it fails to recognize the truth emblazened on the great seal of the unite

i want to turn briefly to medicaid, but simply p, turning medicaid into a block grant program is justode for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in nursing homes, seniors in an assisted living facilities, low-income kids, disabled individuals, and a most deplorable population. it is the blank check the governs with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. finally, i will end by saying this nion, the orwelli notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block- granting medicare that will help hurt individuals in nursing homes and other settings, to suggt that that is done to save medicare is a little reminiscent of that twisted saying that you have to this juror the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on the system for their supports, and all of us know it was not that long ago that republican members of congress surely thought t

under our budget spending on medicaid increases. under our budget, spending increases.doesn't increase athe fast clip that the president wants it to but the reason it doesn't is because we don't want to keep relying on all this borrowed money. we want to get the deficits down, get the deficits paid off. under our bill not only do we end up balancing the budget, we pay off the debt itself. it takes time, but we do that under the c.b.o.oas analysis of the president's budget, he doubles our publicly held debt by the end of his first term, his term, and then he triples it by the end of his budget wind pt the president doesn't come anywhere close going to the deficits down to what they rate as a sustainable level let alone get the deficit under control, the debt under control. you've got to remember, charlie, today's high deficits and debt mean to entrepreneurs and businesses and job creators more tax increases and higher interest rates tomorrow. so showing that we're not getting this under control shows the economy that it's going to be an ugly road, don't invest in the fut

it would cut medicaid by $750 billion over the next decade.on-partisan congressional budget office says if you take the medicare change changes, the premium support that some call a vouch every -- call a voucher, as a result seniors pay more out of pocket than they would with medicare. >> what we're talking about with the changes in medicare is also do some things to correlate to folks' incomes. there are people making a lot of money in this country who can afford their own healthcare. we are in a situation where we have a safety net in place in this country for people who frankly don't need one. we have to focus on making sure we have a safety net for those who need it. >> chris: the medicaid people -- you're going to cut that by $750 billion. >> the medicaid reductions are off the baseline. so what we're saying is allow states to have the flexibility to deal with their populations, their indigent populations and the healthcare needs the way they know how to deal with them. not to impose some mandate from a bureaucrat in washington. >> chris:

and on medicaid, which is going to be block granted. states understand that 62% of medicaid expenses are for long-term care for seniors. so we want to talk about women and children, i'm happy to do that but for seniors this is devastating. any american who has a loved one in the nursing home could well to have pay that out-of-pocket in the future, not because medicaid won't be there nor and we'll have to bring them home to care for them. so this is -- the same time they are doing this for seniors, there's question that they are protecting -- you've heard some of this already. they are spending the same amount of money, if not more, to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans, $700 billion. they are protecting tax cuts for the oil industry. and they are continuing, in fact, guaranteeing not to deal with the issues of inefficiencies in the pentagon. there are all of us, as i said before, all of us on the committee, republicans and democrats, believe very, very strongly that we have to deal with this deficit. and we should. but

revamping medicare, medicaid. how is that going to happen when you can't get an agreement? >> that's a good question. i find it ironic the week we're trying to engage the president, the democrats and the country with an honest debate about the budget, with real solutions to fix this country's problem and prevent the crisis, the president is launching the re-election campaign. these are tough times for america. we don't need a good politician. we need a strong leader. we need to engage this country on the inces issue -- on the issues necessary to create prosperity and get the debt paid off and get the economy growing. we know we're giving the children and grandchildren a lower -- >> chris: but we. >> we don't need good politics or empty promises. we need tone gauge and fix the problems. >> chris: my question, though, isn't your plan dead on arrival if they can't agree on $3 billion, how are they going to agree on $4 trillion? >> i don't know the answer to that. but i want to look my kids in the face and sleep soundly and put out a plan to try to fix the country's problems. w

today, medicaid providers and sources of medicaid are paid on average much less than providers and private health insurance. it varies based on states, and because of that, medicaid beneficiaries have more difficulty finding physicians to treat them than people with private insurance to so that sort of outcome is possible if payments go far enough and this is a topic we are to written our concerns about in last year's legislation but we haven't developed the capacity and a quantitative way the thing that there's a growing amount of research on how doctors and hospitals and nurses and other providers respond to the direct financial incentive the face of that research is still in a fairly restage and doesn't speak that clearly to exactly what would happen with the cuts of the magnitude that are now in the current lull so the physicians in particular it is for 30% cut roughly in the payment would be well outside of the range of historical experience and it comes after a period of a number of decades in which payments have been reasonably country already said that puts us to a different place

medicaid would also be changed. it would become a block grant to states. $750 billion cut over ten years. taxes. the bush tax cuts would be made permanent, something you know the president opposes. and for individuals, the top rate would be cut to 25% from 35%. now, you can expect that democrats would come out -- >> sure. >> -- and oppose this. and to your mind, even demagogue it. but here was a response from erskine bowles and allan simpson, co-chairs of the bipartisan debt commission -- >> they're friends of mine. >> this is what they said in part -- let me put it on the screen. your plan "largely exempts defense spending from exemptions and would not apply any of the savings from eliminating or reducing tax expenditures as part of tax reform to deficit reduction. as a result, it relies on much larger reductions in domestic discretionary spending than does the commission proposal, while also calling for savings in some safety net programs, cuts which would place a disproportionately adverse effect on disadvantaged

and medicaid, is going to be block granted, 62% of medicaid expenses are for long-term care for seniors. so we want to talk about women and children. i'm happy to do that but for seniors this is devastating. any american who has a loved one in a nursing home, could well have to pay that out of pocket in the future because medicaid won't be there for them. so this is the same thing they are doing this for seniors. there is no question that they are protecting -- you have heard some of this already, they are spending the same amount of money if not more, to protect tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of americans. protecting tax cuts for the oil industry and continuing by guaranteeing not to deal with the issues of inefficiencies in the pentagon. there are -- all of us have said before, all of us on the committee, republicans and democrats believe very strongly that we have to deal with this deficit and we should. but the way we do it matters. we do it on the backs of seniors in -- or share it across the spectrum and tackling tax expenditures and costs in other arenas. and that is -- that is re

if you take medicaid and put medicaid in the form of a block grant, we have states that are in crisis all across our country. if they had to deal with a block grant in the time of a recession when unemployment is the highest, that's when medicaid needs to be most flexible. it is unacceptable that my republican colleagues have made a statement to the american people today that today ends the social contract. i just want to say that i want to thank god for the senate because i know that this will be dead on arrival in the senate as it should be, because i know to the american people this plan would be dead on arrival. thank you very much. >> hi. i'm debbie from minnesota and i'm standing here today because of the shared sacrifice in the town that i grew up. my hometown saw st. paul. carried a lunch bucket down to the meat packing plants. dangerous jobs, worked on the railroads to make sure that i had a good education, to make sure that i had a safe school to attend, to make sure that we had roads, that we had the basics in life that helped communities be strong and vibrant. so budgets t

and deal substantively with what ryan has put on the table, like medicaid. you just cannot sit back and denounce them -- >> and that is what they're doing, what the democrats are doing, undeniable. >> i agree, and it is irresponsible. >> where will 9/11 attackers be tried? not in civilian courts. >> khalid sheik mohammed, ramzi bin-alshid. >> that is attorney general eric holder. there will be tried by military commissions and gitmo. sti -- holder said he still wants to try them in new york but congress forces and. > -- forced his hand. >> i always thought that with these guys, a military commission was at a reasonable thing to do. when you have to do is make sure that they are fair enough to pass constitutional muster. the last time the president tried to do it, he did it on his own without congress and they were to rfare and president bush -- >> the military knows how to do this. >> they do it and they should be able to do it. these people were involved in the biggest attack on the united states shores ever by a foreign power. i don't know why that isn't w

who wouldn't be able to afford nursing home care without medicaid. many are poor children. some are middle class families who have children with autism or down syndrome. some of these kids with disabilities, the disabilities are so severe that they require 24-hour care. these are the americans we'd be telling to fend for themselves. and worst of all, this is a that says even though americans can't afford to invest in education at current levels or clean energy, even though we can't afford to maintain our on medicare and medicaid, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. think about that. in the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working americans actually declined. meanwhile, the top 1% saw their income rise by an. >> of more than a quarter million dollars each. who needs to pay less taxes? they want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. that's not right. and it's not going to happen as long as i'm president. [applause] this vision is

not only medicare but medicaid. but our boats count the most. >> where is the republican plan if they come up with the 20 underplays plan to get it right and we don't think that. we believe with the way to change the health structure interchange canada -- the big changes are 2014 the individual mandate, the mandate on the state's and massive expansion of medicaid. they take place much later that means the president and his team have invited a long long political battle over health care which will have flashpoints that will be very intense of the next few years you administration's allies have done is guarantee we will have a major battle on health care as a titanic struggle. we are a federal republic. power in the system is widely divided to handle general concerns. most of us liberals and conservatives to look at this very carefully to make a fundamental point* there is no such thing as the american health care system. it doesn't exist. we have a complex system of third-party payment arrangements and is also point*

item, reform medicaid. make it a bloc grant to the states directly. item, overhaul the tax code. business and individual tax breaks would be eliminated with top corporate and personal income tax rates, get this, capped at 25%. over a 10-year period, chairman ryan's proposal cuts 6.2 trillion -- that's t as in thomas, trillion dollars from president obama's budget. on twitter house minority leader nancy pelosi lampooned the ryan path to prosperity as "a path to poverty for america's seniors and children and a road for big oil." question, what impact will ryan's budget proposal have on the national debate over today's federal deficit? >> they're going to demonize ryan and demagogue his plan, and i don't think his plan will go anywhere in the united states senate. but, i do think he's laid out a marker, a very serious plan about serious issues, it's got a growth factor to it which is very important and it's got some very serious cuts that everybody knows we're going to have to make somewhere down the road. i don't think tes ago you said willi think he'll be basically republicans are

it for medicare, medicaid. we all need to be put together an attraction which we pay attention to what matters, and our voice counts the most. >> there's been a lot of talk about what is the republican plan, where is the conservative plan? republicans can come up with a 2801 page plan that would somehow get it right, we don't think that. we really believe the way to change the health sector and to change the incentives. right now bureaucrats are making choices for people and they don't like that. medicare brought by federal washington bureaucrats, medicaid by state and federal bureaucrats. employee health benefits when most people get their private insurance, but human resources director, their bosses. people want this choices themselves. especially in information age economy. what you need to do is move power and control back to the consumer so that day, the market reorganizes itself around them and change in the incentives means changing the resource allocation instead of moving power to washington, it moves

both medicare and medicaid are broke programs that are going to be bankrupt. social security, the folks would face a 22% cut across the board, and doing nothing is unacceptable. you thought of thoughtful proposals that don't just cut these programs, they reform them so they can provide the services, which these beneficiaries deserve, and for the next generation. >> susie: dean, what do you think the chances are there will be a budget deal by friday? >> i think we will at least see a short-term shutdown by the government, but i suspect we'll have a deal not too long after that. people that go to washington to go to the smithsonian are going to be upset. >> susie: dean, you're a democrat, and doug, you are a republican. if you were to give one piece of advice so we can get a deal why friday, what do you think it would be. doug, you're first. >> i think he has waited too long. on budget, he has shown no presidentship in three years. >> susie: dean, in just a few words, what would you tell the president? >> start talking about boosting the economy. it's unacceptab

it is one that addresses that challenge of medicare and medicaid in the years after that. these are both were the goals. they are worthy goals for us to achieve. the way this plan achieved those goals would lead to a fundamentally different america than the one we have known certainly in my lifetime. in fact, i think it would be fundamentally different than what we have known for our history. a 70% cut in clean energy, a 25% cut in education, a 30% cut in transportation, cuts in college programs that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. that is the proposal. these are not the kind of cuts to make when you are trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings and the budget. these are not the kind of cuts that the fiscal commission proposed. these are the kind of cuts that tell us we cannot afford the america that i believe in and i think you believe in. i believe it paid to a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. it is a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapsed, we cannot afford to fix them. if there are bright young americans to ha

medicaid is being misused in many cases. there are so many people collecting this for children they do not have custody of, food stamps for family members they do not have, custody of their children. i know that you have some computers that can check on these things. people are deliberately having children just to get a tax break. this is happening all over the country. if we had more inspections on the expenditures, we would have less expense for the government's. host: really getting to the heart of waste, fraud. guest: you remember when they were advocating obamacare, they said a significant portion of that would be funded through waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare. that is something that we have to focus on with harsh penalties so that we have a harsh penalty -- focus on those who are doing this and give them a harsh penalty. we will continue to work with leadership and to reach across the aisle to compromise which will allow government to keep on functioning well, keep on making cuts that would keep the government on t